User talk:Hasteur/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- User:SudoGhost (Away) 07:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello Hasteur. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize after seeing that you already completed that questionnaire. My76Strat (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

BCA DRN

Hi Hasteur. I didn't mean to do anything wrong. They told me the discussion might be closed if I don't provide more info. Please forgive me, this is the first time I've ever used DRN. Please let me know which section is the "opening statement". I am not sure which section to trim. Regardless of whichever section I trim, do you want me to make a new section that goes more in depth? Charles35 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC

Don't you think you should nominate UFC 1 through UFC 154 if you think they fail WP:GNG and WP:EVENT? Mkdwtalk 22:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw your accusation immediately. We are only considering UFC 157 at the AfD. That you're wanting to make a WP:OTHERCRAP argument with UFC 1 through UFC 154 suggests that you are aligned with the MMA enthusiasts. Hasteur (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
How was that an accusation? Please calm down. No need to get so "strong". I've left my arguments how WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERCRAP do not apply. Mkdwtalk 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The issue at hand is UFC 157. There are some events (like UFC 94) which are notable in their own right. I picked UFC 157, primarily on the grounds that it's still 2 months untill the event so we don't know if the event is going to be notable. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback notification for proposal

Hi. You left me a TB notification to your MMA proposal. I don't mean to be rude, but I think your method of generating discussion for your proposal is not the best way to go about it and could be considered a form of canvassing. I say this because you seem to have only left TB notifications for users that supported keeping the UFC 157 article at the AFD discussion here, and because I have never edited the WikiProject MMA page before. If you want to generate more discussion and outside opinion on a proposal, you should usually try WP:RFC. I am intending this message as a friendly pointer for the proper way to generate discussion. I will try to comment on your proposal, but I admittedly don't know much about MMA as I've never watched a fight. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

you're right in that I used a list to solicit feedback via talkback MSG, though not in the way you expect. I did my first round of soliciting based on people who expressed oppose viewpoints to the general sanctions or ones that wanted a community based solution. I intend to drop more invites once i get back from lunch. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In the AfD, i disagreed with Hasteur, yet he still invited me to take part in the discussion on WT:MMA with a TB notification. canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Kevlar (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

i think your write up in A New Day will be very helpful in keeping the MMA community focused on creating better Articles, rather than bickering. One problem i see is that there are still not guidelines on what makes an event ready for it's own article. Would you be willing to read Stand Alone Articles for MMA Events on the MMA notability page? it's a bit spammy but i think it covers all the bases and should help to determine what events should or should not have their articles. Kevlar (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

hey, i did some work to combine your guidelines at A New Day and mine at Stand Alone Articles for MMA Events. they are currently on my sandbox. i'm wondering if you might take a look to make sure i didn't mess anything up before i present it to the WP:MMA community.
quick note, i ad libbed the part about omnibus articles being appropriate for top and second tier mostly because a number of them already have an event list in their page. (See: BAMMA, Cage Warriors, Jungle Fight, MFC, One FC, Shark Fights, UCMMA, and URCC) Kevlar (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Flags are allowed to be in results tables because the UFC has always been a competition between countries, and that is why they have always shown flags in the tale of the tape, or country name in the very early UFC days. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. UFC is individual fighters with the one cited exception I pointed out. If you think the consensus has changed, you can try to open a new RFC to challenge the viewpoint (while giving notice at WP:MOSFLAG]). I personally am sceptical that the consensus has changed being that the previous RFC asserting that the flags are inappropriate closed less than a month ago. I would suggest that you not make the challenge as your edits (as percieved by me) are bordering on the line of willfully ignoring the existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No actually I am correct, and what you believe and what the RFC states are way different. I'm not willfully ignoring the consensus, I read it, and I understand it. And I have readded the flags, because I understand that the UFC has always been a competition between countries. It sounds like you have a bad case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Hasteur... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Marty Ashby page

Hi,

Marty Ashby came to me for help getting a wikipedia entry recently and I've been using copy that he wrote and gave me. Yes, some of it is directly from his bio on his website, but it is Marty himself giving me the info. I don't know what to do about that.

I'm a technology consultant to nonprofits by trade. Marty works at MCG Jazz in Pittsburgh - came to me for help. He wasn't able to figure out how to post or format an article on here - asked me to do it.

If you want to delete the page, that's fine. I'll let him know that he need to re-write it using different language so it doesn't fall under the copy/paste category. I'd like to ask that you don't boot me off here, however, for simply helping someone get an article posted. I may actually want to get more involved on here one of these days.

Thanks, Cindy Leonard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy leonard (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the page with Conflict of interest because your working relationship with the subject. I've turned down the speedy deletion nomination and explained why the article should recieve a stay (to improve upon) instead of deletion. Please communicate to Marty that he needs to make a donation of copyrighted material so that the content is able to be worked with. Please look over the prose and see about ways that you could re-write the original prose to make it less "About Me" and more a neutral biography. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo RfC

Hi Hasteur, can I beg you to bring the curtain down on this - with any wording that suits! It's just an open drain that invites people to keep pouring stuff in and it's clearly not going anywhere. Most of the involved parties seem ready to pursue their quarrel via this AN/I discussion and I don't think we need multuiple venues for this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'd like to suggest Full Protection on the RfC's main and talk pages as I suspect that people are going to be very upset that their mud slinging soapbox has been closed down. Hasteur (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Although they have other venues to squabble in, as noted above. As closer I'd say you have the right to fully protect, go right ahead! Thanks for closing this one down, not the last we've heard from this lot I'm sure! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
But I don't have the keys to the Janitor supply closet. Shall I file for protection the traditional (and potentially delaying) way? Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There go my assumptions again. Yes, I think asking someone else is the right thing. If I do it I'd rightly be seen as having been too closely involved, I think. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the implied vote of confidence in me. Perhaps one day (when the MMA drama has gotten colder than Pluto's surface) I'll make a bid for the mop. But I still need to create at least 1 article that can either make a bid for DYK or GA based on the current voting trends of RFA. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think both would be a good idea. That is, both going for the mop and waiting for the MMA ruckus to die. I agree that a GA or DYK would help. Have you considered going to editor review to help get some outside feedback first? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, could you please amend your close of the RfC/ U to use the word "participants" rather than "framers"? It's not Pete and I that are continuing DR at ANI against HiLo48. --Surturz (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Much obliged :-) --Surturz (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI I've thanked you here too. --Surturz (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Word choice

Hasteur, did you really mean to talk about the "instigation" of the RfC on SchuminWeb at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case? Compare instigate. If you didn't mean the RfC is an evil or criminal action, or designed to goad, set on, or provoke, you might want to choose a different word. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

Probably not that exact usage, but more like the "Commenced". If people know what I meant, then I think we're good to go. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMANOT

Re this edit, WP:MMANOT is an essay, not a notability guideline (secondary or otherwise). It should be used in AfD's only in a way that does not create the implication that it is a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Try again. From the very top of the page This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest..
Considering that this advice is the synthesis of a concensus, it does make sense that it should be used. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I replied at the AfD. This is an important distinction for you to understand. Isn't it telling you anything when MMANOT is not in the category at WP:SNG that you have linked twice? VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

SchuminWeb

Regarding this comment - the RFCU was not closed because SW has ceased editing, it was closed because there is an ongoing RfArb. That is a minor, but important, distinction. GiantSnowman 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the closing template because you had one that didn't exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

bias

Hi hastuer. You mentioned a bias I migt have and that I need to check it. Would you care to elaborate? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

re: user talk blanking

I'm not sure why I thought the policy required that warnings not be deleted -- it is certainly helpful in terms of knowing which level of warning to give to repeat vandals, but I can see the other side. Anyhow, I won't restore warnings in the future. Thanks for alerting me to the appropriate policy. PStrait (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, your previous experience with the sockmaster BigzMMA would provide a useful insight at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BigzMMA. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Season's greetings!
Best wishes for the festive season and happy new year! Surturz (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Entirely too silly

The Colonel Award
For squashing silliness wherever it may display its hated form. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Might I suggest WP:FUN for your outflowing of fun needs? ANI is supposed to be the "immediate action" needed not the running gag line. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I had a snarky response all lined up and raring to go for that thread, but I used my better judgement for once and decided not to post it! Don't go pinning this on me. I know that it's serious business. hmf.
In seriousness, though, this isn't a criticism of closing the thread; your summary just made me think of this, and I was compelled to post this. I only have so much self-restraint, and as indicated, I used it all up earlier. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This is true, but sometimes a little harmless fun where no one is being offended is acceptable as well. As Ian was the butt of his own joke and everyone went and offered help to the frustrated IP editor, no real harm came from my "block". That said, I'm not offended by the close, to prevent too much of a good thing. It is good to take the work serious, but not ourselves so serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Jamin Newham

I have, at your request and somewhat against my better judgement, restored the page. It is not possible to re-open a closed Afd; if you indeed believe that it should go then you must open a fresh AfD on it. Clearly I cannot do so as any editor in the project could then accuse me of harassment or bias. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkably exemplar editor.
You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified!
You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

 --My76Strat (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hasteur. I noticed your response to TP here. You are probably right that the RfA would fail at recognizing your value. But I did want to add that I have observed surplussed of qualifications from your contributions, and regardless of the tool-set you have available when editing, you clearly set a positive example, worth emulating. The fact is, you are an Adman; and that can not be achieved through an RfA. --My76Strat (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence as well. I've copied this "barnstar" to my barnstar page. If you object to this, please feel free to revert (as it contains your signature line). Hasteur (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome, though I'd rather thank you; for exuding competence that commands confidence. My part was easy. I have no objection if you display my signature with the included regards; there is no inconsistency in such a paring. --My76Strat (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Vobis gratias

Thank you very much for your efforts to resolve the RfC regarding Apteva. It is a shame how intense and convoluted the process over there has become; again, thank you for your attempt to get it handled with the least chaos possible. dci | TALK 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on sandboxed article.

Hey Hasteur. If you have a few minutes, could you look over this sand-boxed article for me. I wrote it up last weekend and I'm unsure if it should be moved to main space or not. My primary concern is notability. There are other possibly concerns which I'll not pre-bias you (or others) on. Let me know here, my talk page, or the sandbox talk page what your thoughts are. Any of your talk page stalkers are welcome to offer suggestions and comments as well. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dukla Trencin-Trek

You proposed to delete the article Dukla Trencin-Trek but this proposal has no sense since it is a UCI Continental team. There are about 40-50 articles about UCI Continental teams, do we have to delete them all? LegendK (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the Prod reasoning and the link thereof. Because the results aren't cited they can't contribute to the notability. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
OK but the results are cited in a lot of cycling sites such as www.cyclingarchives.com or www.cqranking.com; there's a page for every year's results, do I have to link every single page? Or the main page is enough? LegendK (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to claim it on the article and it has the potential of being challenged (such as results/standings) it needs to be cited. Please review WP:V and WP:CITE. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a game"

At no point do I believe "wikipedia is a game", nor did I "post fake warnings to stir up trouble". A simple check of the page history would quite clearly see the edits were the first edits I made with Twinkle, were limited to my own talk page as a test, and then were undone very shortly afterwards, also by myself. I would like an apology for that personal attack. Getting (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What I said is not a personal attack. I strongly suggest you go read WP:NPA#WHATIS carefully as your continued beligerent behavior serves as reinforcement to my perception that you are here to stir up trouble. When a random user wanders in with a complaint, part of understanding the complaint is looking into that user's history. What I posted was what I percieved your actions as. I do not intend to apologize to you and you may bring this action to the appropriate boards if you feel that you have been significantly slighted. I would however suggest that you not as the boomerang action that would occur from such an event may very likely restrict your editing privileges. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Getting (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice ...

I won't necessarily disagree with [1] but I don't think it will help things too much given the apparent temperament of some editors. I'm not above being snarky (see my responses in that thread!) but trying to keep them short and mostly on point. I think it's a combination of pet ideas being shot down and some of the deletions are getting them rather on edge. I'm not looking foward to any discussions about fighter notability when folks start saying TUF doesn't count though. I suspect that will be ... unpleasant. Ravensfire (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation made sense to me and we both probably could have predicted the response ... Ravensfire (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe

After reading your comments at WP:ANI and User talk:Guy Macon, as well as his response to you, I'm confused about what you think is going on. "They agree that it does not seem like someone's planning a joejob", you said, but Guy's comments about Getting and the IP sound like the situation described in joe job, a term I don't remember hearing before. Did someone make a typo somewhere? As a result, I'm wondering if you think I should have warned TTT, or warned Getting, or reblocked TTT, or done something else entirely. Could you give a short narrative of what you think is going on? I'm sorry for the confusion, and lest I be unclear — I'm not complaining about anything you've done or said. Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What I intended in that post was
  1. TTT appears to be innocent and shouldn't be punished for an IP playing with their talk page (and trying to forge their signature).
  2. Getting is acting suspiciously and their behavior (including coming here and demanding an apology) is not congruent with their editing age.
  3. That the forward action should be "Wait and See" AKA WP:ROPE.
I have my suspicions about Getting, but until more dots are filled in, a WP:DUCK call is not supported. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Having seen nothing of Getting, I wasn't planning on investigating him further; my big fear was that you thought TTT to be editing his own userpage falsely and then pretending that it was someone else. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Corey

There should be more than enough information in the article at this point for you to go ahead and close out the afd discussion. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Really... Stop slinging manure and try to improve existing articles than create new ones that are so sub-standard to as to be shameful. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
WaitMichael Corey and Mike Corey were on the same dude? Drmies (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a strong suspicion that they were based on same birth date, same geographic location of birth, same general fight record, same events fought in, same oponents at those fights... Hasteur (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even look at that: I just stopped by to English some of the content on one of them, and to place nice little hatnotes distinguishing the two. Wasted efforts! BTW, do you know if Sherdog has ever been brought up at WP:RSN? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This seems to contain some, but I don't think there's ever been a serious discussion about the various MMA sources outside of individual AfD fights. Hasteur (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That's sort of my feeling as well. It's an industry site, hardly like a newspaper, but if notability guidelines depend on the result posted on that web site and we accepts its reliability, then we are also forced to accept it as a reliable source as specified in the BLP PROD guidelines, for instance. Articles on actors can be BLP PRODded if they have nothing but the IMDB, but that would not be possible here, if we accept Cuchullain and Silverseren's responses at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_90#sherdog.com_as_a_reliable_source_for_mixed_martial_arts_BLPs (and I don't see much of a reason to not accept their responses). Drmies (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It might be enough to stave off a BLPPROD, but I don't think that site would establish notability. The RSN statement that it's a reliable source for statistics seems more akin to the WP:ABOUTSELF exception to the use of self-published sources, rather than a truly reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm I beg to differ. The data, I suppose, is not supplied by the fighter. If reliability in MMA is based on data which can reliably be provided by Sherdog, then Sherdog is a means to establish notability via a simple formula ("so many fights in such and such kinds of matches"). Ha, if MMA notability were based on the GNG and its qualification of "significant coverage", we'd be done very quickly and save a lot of server space, since I won't (yet) accept Sherdog's "coverage" is significantly independent of the events and the companies that produce them. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN Novi Sad

Drive-by comment: While I think notifying them is a good thing to do, no editor in that dispute had more than 4 days' experience at WP and none has edited since the 11th, the day the listing was posted. I suspect we'll never see any of them again (at least not under those usernames/IP's). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I like to give plenty of time for disputants to object to closure so we don't have repeat threads. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do, if you haven't already.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

comments on mediation of Peter Proctor

I note your comments on your mediation page and although you might be mad at me for not completly fulfilling the duties of a volunteer, I would like to apologise. I was nw to the process, did not follow the process and got carried away with comments. Will not happen again. Wikishagnik (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are also welcome to remove my comments from the Requests for Mediation page, and just mark me as "agreed." I often have trouble understanding Wiki-jargon about instructions.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

UFC Events Article - Omnibus Format

Are you responsible for bringing this back?

Also, I thought you retired from the MMA article space. --Yohaka (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hrm... Knows back history of MMA discussions last year, newly created account that drops in to lay assertions at policy based editors, doesn't sign their postings. Yohaka, I'm giving you the opportunity to drop both this and the line of inquiry at Talk:2013 in UFC as your behavior is indicative of being a MMA SPA/Sock. Hasteur (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
How about answering the question instead of making personal accusations about me? FYI, I explained my background on my Talk page.--Yohaka (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not responsible. Editors are allowed to leave or join projects/article spaces as much as they want. The fact that another editor has reason to suspect your motives, as evidenced here is reason enough for you to realize that you're not coming from a clean hands position Hasteur (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleting this comment because I realized you actually answered my question. Thanks. Yohaka (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is mediation for Peter Proctor cancelled?

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, I would like to understand why has this mediation been suspended? -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you talk to AGK (talk · contribs) as he's the one who suspended it. Hasteur (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sayadaw U Tejaniya

Thanks for your work on this page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sayadaw_U_Tejaniya I'm new to all this but wondering if it wouldn't make sense to retain a few of these, perhaps 3, appropriately inserted into relevant sections of the article, as likely falling under fair use and doing a fair bit to convey the flavor of the man's teachings. That would seem to be consistent with the guidance given here Wikipedia:QUOTE . Interested in your thoughts. Iguana0000 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Read further down on the page you linked, specifically WP:QUOTEFARM. It'd be one thing if this article were about a significant person, such as the Dali Lama, Supreme Master Ching Hai, Benjamin Franklin, etc. The quotes all came from the same book, and were probably character the same which put it much too close to bulk copying of the book for my taste. Try to limit your usage of any one source to no more than the times as you start to pick up (even a perceived) point of view by using one source repeatedly. Hasteur (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but still a bit confused. I was inquiring about the advisability of putting a few (2-3) appropriate quotations among other sections of the article to provide additional context for the reader. Not clear to me how that would constitute what's being discussed at WP:QUOTEFARM but interested in your opinion.

Iguana0000 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

2 to 3 quotations, when it's clear what the context for selecting the quotation would be just fine. Hasteur (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/FIA Principal Traders Group (FIA PTG)

Hasteur –

Thank you for your initial review on how to improve our FIA-PTG article. Based on your initial assessment it appears that the article needs more third-party sources. We have submitted a new draft, that reflects those changes, for your review. Additionally, please let us know whether you feel that this piece should be posted as an article or rather as a stub; many other trade associations (ex: American Chemistry Council) have articles and we were trying to follow suit. We appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIA-PTG (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As you may appreciate, we have many articles on the stack for Articles For Creation. Your submission will be acted upon in the order in which it was re-submitted. Because I've declined it once, it really needs to be reviewed by someone else to determine if it's appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damian Barr

Hello Hauster, Thank you for reviewing the article I created. I am disappointed it has been declined, but keen to get it right, so just wanted to check with you comment: When you say over linked, do you mean the web page references? What would be seen as a more appropriate number, just one or two per paragraph?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhutton (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Try to pick only the strongest references that support the claims in the article. Move the references next to the portions of the article they submit. Also take a look at WP:CITEKILL to understand what I was getting at. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hauster, Thank you for your reply, link and advice. I will look into that now. Peterhutton (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Review

Hello,

I am a PhD student who wrote the article that was recently rejected for a PhD level class. My adviser thought it was really good and needs to be submitted to wikipedia. The article is purely of empirical and scientifically supported arguments. Nothing is opinion based and everything is cites. Thus, a reevaluation of the entry would be much appreciated Thank you This is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Effects_of_Joint_attention_on_the_Development_of_Language_of_Children_with_Autism

Your advisor is not an editor here. Wikipeida is not a place for original research. I will not be re-reviewing to satisfy you/your advisors requests on the grounds that "it was really good and needs to be submitted to wikipedia". Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

no re-submit button

i corrected the article as per your notes, however, i didn't find under your notes the regular: "to resubmit click here" button. thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rami Farah (talk • contribs) 07:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rilke: After the Fire (poem)

You have just declined my article on Seamus Heaney's translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rilke:_After_the_Fire_(poem)

As far as I can see, everything on the page is entirely factual and therefore I do not need to cite sources. Where, in your view, are sources needed? I am planning to write a page about most of the poems in District and Circle because it is widely studied at Sixth Form in the UK, and I know that many pupils will find the entries and background information useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonedwardclapham (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you think that you don't need to cite sources, however Wikipedia requires that items not only be factual, but verifyable. Items are verifyable by having referencea and inline citations. Please read the advice that was left in on the AfC decline and resolve it. Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the page on verifiable information. This entry is about a poem which is published. It is clear to anyone in possession of that widely published work that what I have written is true. So are you saying that you would like me to cite paricular editions of District and Circle and Rilke's new poems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonedwardclapham (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not reading what I'm saying. It may be imperically obvious to you or anyone in posession of works, but I'm not a UK editor. Because there are no inline citations per WP:CITE we can't evaluate how notable or verifyable the content is. Since you aren't interested in getting a no, I strongly suggest you try the WP:TEAHOUSE to get tutlage on how Wikipedia works. Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do as you suggest, but might I suggest that you adopt a less waspish tone in future with contributors such as I - members of the public with specialist knowledge, who are willing to give up their time free of charge to make contributions to the website? I don't see how antagonising people can be in anyone's interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonedwardclapham (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a member of the public with specialist knowledge, who is willing to give up my time free of charge to make contributions to the website? Does that mean you get to antagonzie me with your adgenda? Seriously I'm a volunteer as well, so please check your attitude at the door as your intial request was already hostile. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hasteur, I'm commenting here because your above comments weren't very constructive. Sometimes, as above, a new user just doesn't know any better, because they haven't been here long enough. Patronizing them really doesn't help the project, and acronyms aren't much of an improvement. Patience is required with new users. If you are willing to guide them along a bit, they may surprise you with their willingness to learn to build an encyclopedia. So please, in the future try to be as helpful as possible when dealing with new users, as Wikipedia is better for it. This is not a warning or anything (you would have gotten one if I felt it was necessary), only a request that you alter this behavior. Of course, I can also understand that we all lose patience sometimes, and maybe you were having a bad day; the best thing to do if you lose patience is just to refer the editor to someone else. I am glad you told Jason to go to the Teahouse before this escalated too much, so thank you for that. It's not necessary to respond, but if you wish to I'll be watching this page, and my talk page is always open. Have a nice day. —Rutebega (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have an exceptionally low threshold for new users being abusive and trying to push a PoV. I'm a veteran of the MMA Wars and I find the best way to educate users is to break them of really bad habits (like being rude/incivil) as early as possible. In the context of this user being abusive here and their not reading and understanding the responses, I think my actions were completely justified. Hasteur (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't really tell you whether you were right or wrong, because all I have is my opinion, which I've already given. My interpretation of the situation was that Jason was merely asking for an explanation of why his article was AfC was denied. Obviously he was wrong when he thought sources were unnecessary, and short of him reading all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before he began editing (which nobody does), he probably wouldn't know that if nobody's told him. That's why, when somebody does something that contradicts consensus, rather than snapping at them for breaking "the rules," I tell them why they're wrong and how they should behave differently in the future. In this case, I certainly wouldn't call Jason's actions to be "abusive" or "POV," on the contrary his initial query was pretty polite. He obviously didn't understand what you were saying at first, but I don't think that means he was abusive. AGF and all that.
I can understand your frustration though; dealing with new users can be exhausting. If you don't insist that your way is the best way (again, not my judgement to make), then in the future you should probably just briefly explain yourself one time, and direct the user to the Teahouse for further explanation, so you don't feel harassed by a newbie who can't take a hint. Just a suggestion.
Anyway, on Wikipedia one has to take responsibility for one's actions. You have the right to treat anybody however you want, but if you rub them the wrong way to the extent that they think you've violated policy, you may come to regret it. Civility (as with most behavioral guidelines) is a fine line we all have to walk, and everybody walks it a bit differently. Happy editing. —Rutebega (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant!

This was brilliant and made me laugh!--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stratford Classical Christian Academy

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stratford Classical Christian Academy - I have correct the references, One was incorrectly linked to the schools website instead of the township site (as noted in the title). I have also changed another to the Township website. Also, my understanding is that high and secondary schools are notable per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Finally, I am not employed by the school, nor am I affiliated with the church who started it. I am however a parent of a student there who was surprised that there was no article for the school. Since I have not submitted any content in the past for Wikipedia or supported it other than the occasional donation, I though this was a chance to add something. I followed the example of several other very similar school that have been accepted into WP. SJDeacon (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As was enumerated in the decline there isn't really enough in my mind to grant this article a promotion to the article space. Yes I am aware that typically High schools are deemed notable, however that essay is a "Typical Practices" behavior, it does not give the explicit grant pass. I do not see any extraordinary reasoning as to why this school qualifies for an article here based on the prose listed here. To give a paralell example (and in the same category) Bishop Lynch High School is an example of a Religious oriented high school that is decently cited and has a non-trivial amount of prose to explain (and justify) it's importance. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. While I'm certain there are examples of other schools that will have stronger content, I based this one on articles for other schools for which the content is almost identical and they are retained. There are other sources, but they are behind newspaper paywalls, etc. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the high school notability article as being a "Typical Practices" guideline. The article reads to me as stating that all high schools are notable, except where the existence of the high school cannot be verified: "Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability. Some editors feel that there is almost always some suitable reliable sources available to base a good article on, and that it is more sensible to consistently retain these articles rather than argue about each one to try to eliminate the very occasional school for which coverage is hard to find." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJDeacon (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Robert Perless

You rejected the submission of the notable artist, Robert Perless. I do not understand your comment regarding a lack of references. First of all, if you look under the catagory of Kinetic Art, there are existing artists with far less work and showings than this particular kinetic artist that we wish to reference from that page. The list of pieces are from the artist himself and the photos are of the artists work. The descriptions are from the artist. Much of the information is also on the artists personal web site. Can you please be more specific on what you think is missing from this submission that is keeping it from being released? We have no idea what references you are looking for to release this submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoskowitz (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You recieved a fully detailed response on the AfC submission. I suggest you don't use "Other _____ with far less" arguments as that's not a good way to start the article. Also please review WP:SELFREF and understand why it's not a good idea to use claims by the subject of a (proposed) article to determine their notability. Finally you use the term "We", implying that the account is being shared between multiple different people. Please be aware that per WP:ROLE only one person is allowed to control and edit from a single account. Hasteur (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll also point out that the bio section of the AfC is a copyright violation of this page. All articles on Wikipedia must be free of copied and pasted material from other places. Close paraphrasing is also not allowed in Wikipedia articles. You can use websites like that one as a cited reference, but you must use your own words in the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations for the Mykayla Skinner article

Hasteur:

Most of your "cn" tags are already covered in the article.

The lead is not required to have citations unless it is a quote or something controversial. It is normal for a summary lead to be citationless (the citations are in the body, the lead is a summary of the body). Almost every reference in the article covers that Skinner is an elite. Ref 5 (the one from the Federation website) is probably the most authoritative one, but her website has this as well as do all the meet result citations where she is in junior or senior elite divisions.

You also have a cite needed tag for the double layout, but there are several cites given clearly. They are at the end of that paragraph. This is very normal and pretty apparent if you look at the actual content (that whole para is discussing the double twisting double layout).

Similar situation for most of the rest of your cite needed tags.

The one tag that does make sense is the one for the quote (will add that, it is a named ref in article, but will put it right at the quote area).

TCO (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I tagged as I determined was necessary. Extraordinary claims demand citations. If sources don't explicitly support the claim, the claim must be removed. Hasteur (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

West One Bridging Index - declined by you.

Hi Hasteur You recently declined my submission on the West One Bridging Index. I had resubmitted it following some hefty and welcome advice from one of your colleagues who had indicated to me that it was now in a format that would be successful. I note your comments are only relating to the reference section where you state the references "do not relate to anything". I would like to point out that each reference entry is a press story which uses the Index as a direct reference for the story content. The Index is given full credit for the statistics used and as such provide the credentials for the Index as a credible reference tool. I would urge you therefore to reassess your view on the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andymossy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS contact

Just a quick heads-up that we have received an e-mail from the creator of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zee Launch Pad asking why it was declined. Such questions are beyond the scope of the OTRS team so I suggested that they ask you about it here. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified on the AfC why it's been declined. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i do not see a resubmit option on my article after i edited it to correct your notes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zee_Launch_Pad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-submitting is what you do when you are putting it up for AfC. The article still does not have in line citations. Please read WP:CITE (and specifically WP:INCITE) and correct. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ..Done.. waiting for your feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 08:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Hello.. just checking about my amendments ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-submit it for AfC, someone will eventually get back around to reviewing it. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

how can i do that? there is no resubmit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC) can you help me please, i would like to finish this article soon ? how do i resubmit it for reviewing? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AFC submission Michael A. Potter review

You and others previously declined the AfC submission Michael A. Potter.

I am asking all past reviewers to join the discussion about this article's current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Review Submission of Notable Cuban American

Hi Hasteur

I am writing to ask you to review again the Article Submission page for Jose Mas, that you declined in February. You noted CiteKill, and I have reduced the number of citations. Jose Mas is an important member of the business community; his company, and he himself, are business-to-business construction folks that do not thrive on website traffic or even enhanced visibility online such as a business-to-consumer companies do. The inclusion of his biography in Wikipedia is purely to provide information and historical note. Mr. Mas is no different than a personality such as William Ford - Mr. Mas is a descendent of the founder of a corporation, and a leader of the company. The purpose of publishing his biography is to facilitate all types of research: whether it's business students studying major trends in oil and natural gas pipeline construction, or Wall Street companies trying to gain understanding of the leadership of a corporation, there is enormous usefulness in publishing his biography, accomplishments, and contribution to the business world.

Please review the article again; I hope you will find it acceptable.

Thank you,

UofM Bookworm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofmbookworm (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at a conversation at the Teahouse Talk page

Given your vast experience and leadership role at AfC I think your input in this conversation could be very valuable - WT:Teahouse#Are newbie article writers always directed to go through AfC?. I suspect I might have identified a significant contributory factor to the huge increase in the AfC backlog. Roger (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad Tune Men

Hi Hasteur, could you help me out here, I could do with your guidance as to what you say regards the Bad Tune Men. I don't really know what I have to do? Thanks for your time. (Ladytwentytwo (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

Hasteur, I asked you for help on the 10th March and you did something that you didn't explain to me about. I am a newbie and would have appreciated an explanation for taking out an article I was working on. I thought I had someone who was getting rid of my article on purpose. What have you done? Why did you take out the old article? The good will you talk about is right Hasteur, but unless you explain what is going on, I don't know how to improve what I am doing.(Ladytwentytwo (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Guiller

You may want to look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Guiller. I don't think the author understands what inline citations really are. He "faked" inline citations (see his last edit). I cleaned them up a bit but they are still not "in-line." Can you give him a hand? I left the submission open rather than discourage him with yet another rejection. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association

Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Yes, I can try and use the 'cn' tag more (to be fair I hardly use it now), but I do use refimprove and no footnotes a lot. I assume you agree it's not always appropriate to use 'cn' if the information is BLP/POV, or very poorly written. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases you just can't prod editors into fixing their own mistakes. Hasteur (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

AT and Formspring

Hello! I just wanted to drop a line and note that I responded to your concerns about Formspring. I just wanted to clear up any issues. Basically, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALMEDIA allow citations like that if the accounts are from notable people, are simply stating facts, and aren't anything controversial. I explained my reasoning for including them in-depth on the talk page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

question about "Carol Wincenc" article submission

Hi, Hasteur. I read your suggestions, thank you. I am new to this. I will be editing it, but I'm a little confused by your comment that the article on this flutist was taken too closely from cited sources such as the Stoney Brook faculty page. I used my own wording in the text of my article; the only thing I took from references such as her Stoney Brook or Juilliard faculty pages or other articles were the factual list of orchestras or chamber groups she played with and pieces she's played, etc.. Knowing this is an encyclopedia, I was trying to make compulsively sure that every word was cited and that I didn't write anything that wasn't cited.I went to great lengths to make sure I did that, so was surprised to see this article stopped for that reason (too close to sources). My confusion is that the article is mainly lists of places she's played and the lists of groups she's played with, lists of her teachers, etc..and those things would of course stay pretty similar, and that's most of the article, as I was trying to avoid writing subjective comments about her.However, I will go back and look at my wording and work on it. Any specific suggestions in the meantime would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.Meftab (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)